alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0872.html[7/21/2015 4:54:30 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-p5jj

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0872

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I am already retired & doing quite well without the Government's say so!

The Government needs to stop trying to micro manage everyone's business!!!
#### § 392.24 Emergency signals; flame-producing.

No driver shall attach or permit any person to attach a lighted fusee or other flame-producing emergency signal to any part of a commercial motor vehicle.

[33 FR 19732, Dec. 25, 1968, as amended at 60 FR 38747, July 28, 1995]
# lnventoryExpettService A divisioll of the American Chemical Society Phone: 800-631-1884, 614-447-3870 Fax: 614-447-3747 E-mail: answers@cas.org Web: www. cas.org/products/ot her-cas- prod ucts/cl icnt-services/ 

# INVENTORY EXPERT SERVICE REPORT IES Order Number: Registry Number: CA Index Name:

Please print the above CA Index Name on the appropriate page of your PMN.

CAS 

# D If this box is checked, CAS has made correction(s) marked in red to your IES order. Please make the same corrections to your PMN before submitting it to the EPA. 

### 2540 Olentangy River Road P.O. Box 

### 3343 Columbus, OH 

### 43210-0334 USA
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Texas-New Mexico Power Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott Forbes,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|                                                  
|/s/    SCOTT FORBES                               
|                                                  
|Scott Forbes Chief Financial Officer March 2, 2004
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1229.html[7/22/2015 4:08:28 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jve-vhlz

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1229

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Steven Opp

General Comment

I am opposing the proposed new regulations concerning my 401k pension. I do not need any government

 assistance in managing my personal affairs nor do I need to have the government take control of my personal

 investment choices. I am perfectly happy handling my pension without any help except for a trusted personal

 advisor that I already am paying to assist me. Thank you for allowing me to comment.
# U.S. Central Command Announces Innovation Oasis Finalists

/ Published Oct. 4, 2022

**TAMPA, Fla.**– Today, U.S. Central Command announced the finalists and panelists selected for the first-ever Innovation Oasis, a ‘Shark Tank’-like innovation competition.

The Innovation Oasis was open to all active servicemembers, reservists, National Guard members, and all DoD civilians. USCENTCOM opened submissions on August 16th and closed them on September 16th, receiving more than 160 submissions. A panel of seven evaluated each submission and selected the top five, who were then invited to come to USCENTCOM headquarters to present their ideas.

The winner of the Innovation Oasis competition, which concludes on October 14th, will come from these finalists.

The five innovators are:
      - Army National Guard Sgt. Mickey Reeve: 1-182nd Infantry, Prince Sultan Air Base, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – His idea is a virtual Counter-UAS trainer.
      - Air Force Capt. Kendra Kirkland: USCENTCOM headquarters – She developed an AI-based personnel accountability system.
      - Air Force Staff Sgt. Stephen Larson: 8th Expeditionary Air Mobility Squadron, Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar – He fabricated a pallet loader.
      - Army Lt. Col. Ferdinand Bacomo: 531st Hospital Center, Fort Campbell, Kentucky – His idea is the restructuring of medical support teams for combat.
      - Maj. Matt Goyette, US Army Reserves: USCENTCOM, Detachment 1, Fort Devens, Massachusetts – He developed a blockchain supply system based on his time working at a Fortune 500 company.

“Getting down to five was a tough cut. The difference between the fifth-best submission and the seventeenth-best submission was negligible. Ultimately, we went with the five submissions that we feel would have the biggest organizational impact if implemented,” said Col. Joe Buccino, USCENTCOM spokesman.

The panel includes:
      - Will Grannis, Chief Technology Officer at Google Cloud.
      - Wes Anderson, Vice President of Defense at Microsoft.
      - Bob Smith, CEO of Blue Origin.
      - Schuyler Moore, USCENTCOM Chief Technology Officer.
      - Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, USCENTCOM Commander.
      - Fleet Master Chief Derrick Walters, USCENTCOM Senior Enlisted Leader and Navy Seal.
      - Thomas “Tom” Martin, Avionics Manufacturing Specialist at SpaceX.
      - James “Jim” Reuter, Associate Administrator for Space Technology at NASA.
      - Rear Admiral Stefano Frumento, Italian Naval Officer.
      - Kevin Harrington, entrepreneur and an original ‘Shark’ on Shark Tank.

“This panel represents the cutting edge in innovative thought across multiple sectors: the defense industry, Silicon Valley, academia, US government, and the tech industry. We have a NASA administrator, one of Forbes’ “30 Under 30,” and the leading executives in disruptive tech,” said Buccino.

-30-
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23
                                                                      ----------

================================================================================

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
CMI Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form
S-8 (No. 33-66274) of CMI Corporation of our report dated February 23, 2001,
except as to Note 14, which is as of March 20, 2001, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of CMI Corporation and subsidiaries as of December
31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
changes in common stock and other capital, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in the
December 31, 2000, annual report on Form 10-K of CMI Corporation.

Our report dated February 23, 2001 except as to note 14, which is as of March
20, 2001, contains an explanatory paragraph that states the status of the
Company's financing arrangements, as more fully described in Note 3 to the
consolidated financial statements, and the Company's significant loss in 2000
raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The
consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
result from the outcome of that uncertainty.



                                                  KPMG LLP

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
April 16, 2001
§ 552.15 Processing of petition. ( a ) NHTSA will process any petition that contains the information specified by this subpart. If a petition fails to provide any of the information, NHTSA will not process the petition but will advise the petitioner of the information that shall be provided if the agency is to process the petition. The agency will seek to notify the petitioner of any such deficiency within 30 days after receipt of the petition.
( b ) At any time during the agency's consideration of a petition submitted under this part, the Administrator may request the petitioner to provide additional supporting information and data and/or provide a demonstration of any of the requested test procedures. The agency will seek to make any such request within 60 days after receipt of the petition. Such demonstration may be at either an agency designated facility or one chosen by the petitioner, provided that, in either case, the facility shall be located in North America. If such a request is not honored to the satisfaction of the agency, the petition will not receive further consideration until the requested information is submitted.
( c ) The agency will publish in the Federal Register either a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing adoption of the requested test procedures, possibly with changes and/or additions, or a notice denying the petition. The agency will seek to issue either notice within 120 days after receipt of a complete petition. However, this time period may be extended by any time period during which the agency is awaiting additional information it requests from the petitioner or is awaiting a requested demonstration. The agency contemplates a 30 to 60 day comment period for any Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and will endeavor to issue a final rule within 60 days thereafter.
# Carter: Meeting of defense ministers marks new stage in ISIL fight

/ Published Feb. 11, 2016

**WASHINGTON (February 11, 2016) —** The first face-to-face meeting of defense ministers fromnations contributing to the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and theLevant marks the beginning of a new stage in that campaign, Defense SecretaryAsh Carter said in Brussels today.

Speaking just before the meeting,Carter said the fight to defeat ISIL is a matter of critical importance for alland each contribution matters.

“Within this coalition andministerial today we are united by a common determination and responsibility toensure ISIL’s lasting defeat,” he said, adding, “ISIL must be defeated. It willbe defeated.”

**Accelerating Efforts**

Carter described President BarackObama’s charge to U.S. forces to accelerate their efforts and U.S. leadershipin the campaign against ISIL.

“We’re looking for opportunities todo even more,” the defense secretary said, “but the campaign will go evenfaster if all of the nations in this room do more, too.”

Carter said he would present theproposed coalition military campaign plan during the meeting and identifyspecific requirements and capabilities, and then all would engage in a frankdiscussion about those capabilities.

**The Way Forward**

He said the campaign plan outlinesthe way forward, and the resources and the capabilities needed to hasten ISIL’slasting defeat.

“In Iraq and Syria it focusesimportantly on the two cities of Mosul and Raqqa, and recapturing them anddemonstrating to the people there and everywhere in the world that there cannotbe a state based upon the ideology of ISIL,” he said.

It also addresses ISIL’s spread toother parts of the world and to the defense of the citizens in the homeland ofeach coalition country, the defense secretary said.

“I welcome your insights and yoursupport on the campaign plan to ensure that we execute this plan effectivelyand that we execute it with urgency,” Carter said.

**Immediate Needs**

After highlighting opportunities toaccelerate the fight and discussing needed capabilities, Carter said thediscussion should address how the coalition can meet specific and immediateneeds to accelerate the campaign and provide more effective support forpartners on the ground.

“In the coming weeks there will beseveral opportunities to discuss and evaluate and make more specific yourcontributions and how well we are implementing our renewed commitments,” hesaid.

By then, at the latest, the defensesecretary said, “we should begin to see tangible gains from those additionalcapabilities, from the ones that the coalition is already bringing to bear.”

Carter said the meeting would end with adiscussion on countering ISIL’s movement to other countries, including Libya.
###### Editorial Note on Part 385

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 385 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 385.417 Is a motor carrier's safety permit number available to others?

Upon request, a motor carrier must provide the number of its safety permit to a person who offers a hazardous material listed in § 385.403 for transportation in commerce. A motor carrier's permit number also will be available to the public on the FMCSA Safety and Fitness Electronic Records System website at *https://safer.fmcsa.dot.gov.*

[84 FR 51433, Sept. 30, 2019]
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2845

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Michelle A. Green, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 1, 2009

Filed: October 8, 2009

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michelle Green appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed upon revoking

her supervised release, arguing that the court did not properly consider the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, and abused its discretion, in imposing the sentence.

Upon careful review we conclude that, to the contrary, the court carefully and

expressly considered multiple relevant section 3553(a) factors, including Green’s

repeated prior violations of supervised release, the high risk that she would commit

new felonious conduct, the prior sentencing leniency that she had received, and the
-2-

need for the type of strict supervision that could be provided in prison. Cf. United

States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (court is not required to list every

§ 3553(a) factor when sentencing defendant; record must show that court considered

relevant matters and stated reason for its decision). Further, the revocation sentence

is within the statutory limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Accordingly, we cannot say

that the sentence is unreasonable. See id. at 922, 924 (no error in imposing 60-month

sentence that exceeded Guidelines recommended range of 5-11 months, where

sentence was within statutory maximum, court expressed grave concern over

defendant’s numerous and repeated violations of supervised release and inability to

complete drug treatment programs, and defendant persisted in criminal conduct

despite many chances afforded by probation office); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d

824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESMERALDA CARBALLO RAMIREZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-71083 

Agency No. A061-141-792 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Esmeralda Carballo Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal 

from an immigration judge’s removal order, and denying her motion to remand. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 

denial of a motion to remand, and review de novo constitutional claims. Vargas-

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-71083 

Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923, 921 (9th Cir. 2007). We review for 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 

1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Carballo Ramirez’s motion 

to remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where she failed to establish

prejudice resulting from her prior attorney’s alleged ineffective assistance. See 

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793-94 (9th Cir. 2005) (to prevail on an 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that 

counsel’s performance may have affected the outcome of the proceedings).

To the extent Carballo Ramirez challenges the agency’s finding of 

removability, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that she is 

removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), where she knowingly assisted 

another alien in seeking entry into the United States in violation of the law. See

Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 592 (9th Cir. 2005) (requiring an 

affirmative act of assistance in order to establish alien smuggling). Carballo 

Ramirez did not demonstrate that her statements to immigration officials at the 

border were inaccurate or obtained by coercion. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 

310 (9th Cir. 1995) (the sole test for admission of evidence is whether the evidence 

is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair; information on an 
3 16-71083 

authenticated immigration form is presumed to be reliable in the absence of 

evidence to the contrary presented by the alien).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Carballo Ramirez’s remaining 

contentions regarding whether prior counsel erred and the necessity of complying 

with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See

Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are 

not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 23-4


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-57640, 333-84446 and 333-108546), on Form
S-4 (File No. 333-37082) and on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-61390 and 333-49780) of
Exelon Corporation and Subsidiary Companies of our report dated January 29, 2003
relating to the financial statement schedule of Exelon Corporation, which
appears in this Form 10-K/A.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Chicago, Illinois
December 11, 2003
B

----

**Description**
**Page**

| ARTICLE                I. |  OFFICES |
|---------------------------|---------------|

| ARTICLE                II. |  STOCKHOLDERS |
|----------------------------|--------------------|

| ARTICLE                III. |  BOARD OF                DIRECTORS |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------|

| ARTICLE                IV. |  OFFICERS |
|----------------------------|----------------|

----

| ARTICLE                V. |  STOCK CERTIFICATES |
|---------------------------|--------------------------|

| ARTICLE                VI. |  INDEMNIFICATION |
|----------------------------|-----------------------|

| ARTICLE                VII. |  CONTRACTS, LOANS, CHECKS, DEPOSITS AND              INVESTMENTS |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ARTICLE                VIII. |  CONFIRMATION AND RATIFICATION OF              CONTRACTS |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|

| ARTICLE                IX. |  YEAR  |
|----------------------------|------------------|

| ARTICLE                X. |  DIVIDENDS  |
|---------------------------|-----------------------|

| ARTICLE                XI. |  SEAL  |
|----------------------------|------------------|

| ARTICLE                XII. |  WAIVER OF NOTICE  |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------|

| ARTICLE                XIII. |  BYLAWS |
|------------------------------|--------------|

----

**BRITTON      & KOONTZ CAPITAL CORPORATION**

**NATCHEZ,      MISSISSIPPI**

**AMENDED      AND RESTATED BYLAWS**

----

----

| (d)   | This                Section 2.13 shall not be applicable to proposals placed before any                meeting of stockholders by action of the Board of                Directors. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

**ARTICLES      OF AMENDMENT TO**

**THE      BYLAWS OF**

**BRITTON      & KOONTZ CAPITAL CORPORATION**

----

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 30, 2015

a0622

Order 

Clerk

June 30, 2015

150309(125)

JOSEPH WHITE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 150309

COA: 314990

Wayne CC: 11-011126-CZ

DETROIT EAST COMMUNITY MENTAL

HEALTH, MARILYN SNOWDEN, SHIRLEY

CALHOUN, DORIS STERRETT, and GATEWAY

COMMUNITY HEALTH PROVIDER,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 31, 

2015 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.